I heard on radio this morning, a Judge has concluded his pre-sentence summation, and the sentence itself upon another of society's miscreants. The only trouble being, I'm sure when everyone hears details of crime and the sentence applied for that crime, there'll be howls of disapproval at the apparent leniency by yet another seemingly 'out of touch' Judge ?

We are told by our politicians that the judiciary are wholly independent, and should remain so, for the exclusive (fair) dispensation of justice in our community. There are processes in place that can remove a judge for serious misconduct, otherwise they have the job for life, together with an attractive salary with benefits.

So who are these bewigged, colourfully gowned men and women ? To us mere mortals, they're God like, indefatigably and assiduously righteous in their quest, for the precise dispensation of justice, and fairness for all ?

Or are they, as many now tend to view them, completely out of touch with the community's expectations of appropriate justice ? Too aloof and remote, academically arrogant, and way to parochial and protected by government(s)?

What do you think ?

Dear O Sung Wu,

The following two links may help:

http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheet/separation-of-powers.html

And -

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/odgers/chap20

Yes Foxy, & it is that very "security of tenure" that is the problem.

The whole system is controlled by the lawyers, & anyone who trusts a lawyer is a bloody idiot.

This I believe is o sung wus cause for complaint. The judges are a law unto themselves, & show absolutely no interest in the standards of correction the public want. We continually get criminals, like rapists, back out on the street to reoffend, either on bail, or after all too lenient sentences, shortened to the ridiculous by parole boards.

We need to make judges & magistrates answerable to the people who pay their salaries. The only way this is likely to happen is for us to elect our judges, on at least no more than 6 year terms.

When they are likely to be thrown out if their sentencing does not meet community expectations, we may find them a little more responsive to the real world, a place they have very little connection to today.

Dear Hasbeen,

Bloody ridiculous and un-Australian mate.

This is the kind of thing that happens when you elect judges and force them to spend tens of thousands of dollars on election campaigns;

Quote;

(Reuters) - A former Pennsylvania juvenile court judge was sentenced on Thursday to 28 years in prison for accepting payment to send juveniles to a for-profit detention facility in a scandal dubbed "kids for cash,".

Former Luzerne County Juvenile Court Judge Mark Ciavarella, 61, accepted nearly $1 million from a developer who built the detention facility, prosecutors said.

Under the "kids for cash" scheme, thousands of juveniles were shipped to the private center on minor or questionable charges by Ciavarella and another former judge, Michael Conahan, according to juvenile advocates.

"Mr. Ciavarella abused his position of trust and inflicted a deep and lasting wound on the community he vowed to service," U.S. Attorney Peter Smith said following the sentencing.

End quote.

If this is the system you think you would enjoy perhaps you might consider moving.

Correct, SteeleRedux.

The electing of judges in America has proven to be a complete disaster. Justice is effectively for sale there.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lawreport/voting-for-judges-in-the-usa/3397394#transcript ("show transcript" needs to be clicked)

Making judges choose between doing their job and bowing to the demands of angry mobs with their pitchforks and torches, who have no idea about the specifics of a case or the ramifications of more punitive sentencing, is always going to end badly. Numerous studies show that when presented with the same facts, members of the general public estimate sentences more lenient than what judges handed down in real life. This is partly because judges are bowing to the pressures of the general public but can only do so to a certain extent before they are no longer doing their job in (ironically) serving the public.

There is a reason why those with their pitchforks and torches are largely being ignored by judges and lawmakers and it's not because judges and lawmakers are out-of-touch. Serving the public does not mean giving them everything they want. Especially when it can be demonstrated through decades of research that what they want will not provide them with the result they think it will (e.g. greater protection, restitution, social harmony).

Dear o sung wu,

If we had a chance to choose between good and bad the choice would be easy. We rarely get that choice. Generally what we get is the chance to choose the least bad. I think that's what we have in our judiciary.

Judges may be out of touch. That may sometimes be a good thing. They may be free from the prejudices of the day stirred up by the Murdoch press.

People may think the judge is too lenient. However, he or she has heard all the testimony, and the judge's critics haven't. I was a juror in a murder trial and found the defendant guilty as did eleven other jurors. I felt I might have committed the murder had I been in the defendant's place. I don't know the sentence, but I hope the judge was lenient.

Judges may be called unaccountable. In Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia judges were completely accountable to the state and had to do the bidding of the state. An independent judiciary is still accountable. They are accountable to the law, and their decision may be upset if it is judged by another court that it was not in accordance with law.

Judges may not be aware of the problems of the common people. That is true. The way to deal with that is to make it possible for anybody with the ability to become a judge to have access to education so judges might be more representative of the general population. The current government wants to deregulate university fees which would make it more difficult for all but the rich to get an education. To get more aware judges make it possible for those with the ability but without the money to become a judge.